Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

For the sake of philosophical consistency, I'm not conceptually or morally opposed to capital punishment.

 

Its actual execution (pun fully intended) leaves so much to be desired as to probably/definitely render it morally unacceptable.  But if the "perfect world" existed where there was 100% certainty that the wrong person would never be put to death, then by all means please procced.

 

I fully realize that doesn't square at all with my belief in the non-existence of "free will" as I'd be condemning someone to death for an action for which they had no other choice but to commit.  However, that's a "moral failure" that I'm quite comfortable living with.

 

 

 

This is where I fall as well—the Earth would be better off without some people, but I don't trust anyone to make that call. Best thing to do is to lock people away just in case a mistake is made.

[chakoo]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

Is a person who favors a 20 week abortion cutoff pro-life or pro-choice? 

 

Pro-Life because there is no actual reason to ban after 20 weeks. This mythical person who is aborting a baby in 3rd trimester because they no longer feel like having one isn't reality. It instead harms women who need a termination due to a failing pregnancy.

[TUFKAK]

6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

For the sake of philosophical consistency, I'm not conceptually or morally opposed to capital punishment.

 

Its actual execution (pun fully intended) leaves so much to be desired as to probably/definitely render it morally unacceptable.  But if the "perfect world" existed where there was 100% certainty that the wrong person would never be put to death, then by all means please procced.

 

I fully realize that doesn't square at all with my belief in the non-existence of "free will" as I'd be condemning someone to death for an action for which they had no other choice but to commit.  However, that's a "moral failure" that I'm quite comfortable living with.

 

 

Social contract theory alone allows me to morally justify capital punishment. In the philosophical perfect case of someone we are 100% sure is guilty and will have a guaranteed recidivism rate it is in societies best interest to remove that person from our midst. Society already morally allows lethal force to be perpetrated in its best interest, this just extends it out.

 

Of course with as flawed as our society and justice system is I find I can’t morally support the system in its current state.

[TUFKAK]

4 minutes ago, chakoo said:

 

Pro-Life because there is no actual reason to ban after 20 weeks. This mythical person who is aborting a baby in 3rd trimester because they no longer feel like having one isn't reality. It instead harms women who need a termination due to a failing pregnancy.

Also this but we have to compromise on fucking everything in this nation so.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

Even if somehow it was shown that abortion is morally wrong to some degree, it still doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. Consequences of the law have to be weighed as well as the moral implications of taking a fundamental choice away from individual women. 

 

Laws should be focused on the people that are here, not potential people. We can't just go and make anything that is "morally wrong" illegal. An easier thing for people to do is just be against abortions in their own lives. However, that's easier said than done with anti-abortion folks are first in line to get their own abortions when the time calls for it.

 

If folks want to prevent abortions, they should instead focus all that energy on preventing pregnancies. Unless someone is of the mind that all abortions need to go, even if it kills those that are pregnant, the only "morally unjust" abortion is for an unwanted pregnancy and those can be somewhat managed via policy.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

40 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

This is where I fall as well—the Earth would be better off without some people, but I don't trust anyone to make that call. Best thing to do is to lock people away just in case a mistake is made.

 

31 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Social contract theory alone allows me to morally justify capital punishment. In the philosophical perfect case of someone we are 100% sure is guilty and will have a guaranteed recidivism rate it is in societies best interest to remove that person from our midst. Society already morally allows lethal force to be perpetrated in its best interest, this just extends it out.

 

Of course with as flawed as our society and justice system is I find I can’t morally support the system in its current state.

 

There are few things that make me roll my eyes harder than pro-choice liberals who suddenly get all squishy when it comes to capital punishment

 

Hell, I'll even go so far as to call myself pro-abortion/pro-death penalty if it'll make everyone feel better!

[legend]

Starting an argument with the goal of determining what is "moral" is a category mistake from the start. "Moral" an absolutely useless word that only serves to prompt people to regurgitate their arbitrary cultural biases. Many have strived to rescue to the word into a more useful definition, but the campaign has been a failure with may competing alternative campaigns only making the matter worse. The term is irrevocably broken and we should never begin argument with it ever again. Its failure as a meaningful term that causes everyone to talk past each other in the most unproductive of ways is perhaps only rivaled by the term "free will."

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

There are few things that make me roll my eyes harder than pro-choice liberals who suddenly get all squishy when it comes to capital punishment

 

One involves killing a person and the other doesn't.

[mclumber1]

Just now, Jason said:

 

One involves killing a person and the other doesn't.

 

Tim McVeigh was not a person though.  He was a monster. 

[Ghost_MH]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

Starting an argument with the goal of determining what is "moral" is a category mistake from the start. "Moral" an absolutely useless word that only serves to prompt people to regurgitate their arbitrary cultural biases. Many have strived to rescue to the word into a more useful definition, but the campaign has been failure with may competing alternative campaigns only making the matter worse. The term is irrevocably broken and we should never begin argument with it ever again. Its failure as a meaningful term that causes everyone to talk past each other in the most unproductive of ways is perhaps only rivaled by the term "free will."

 

It's a useless word because morals change even in someone as "unchanging" as religion. Christians in this country were once pro-abortion since the Bible literally includes instructions for priests to abort the babies of unfaithful wives...though I'm sure in the years since that's been changed to not an abortion because miscarriage comes from God.

 

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Tim McVeigh was not a person though.  He was a monster. 

 

Unfortunately, the vast majority of  death sentences aren't so black and white and our justice system isn't nearly adequate enough to differentiate between the two.

[TUFKAK]

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Unfortunately, the vast majority of  death sentences aren't so black and white and our justice system isn't nearly adequate enough to differentiate between the two.

I’d say the majority, note I didn’t say vast majority, are pretty clear; but the wrongful conviction rate is too high for me to lethal force after the imminent threat has passed.
 

Monsters do exist and not everyone can be rehabilitated.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Well that’s fucked up

Father violating the mother doesn’t excuse the mother violating the child.

 

But I don’t expect any of you to see eye to eye on that.  It’s to be expected with the perspectives here on the unborn.

[Bacon]

I don't value a random fetus any more than I do a random ant. Should the host of a fetus value its survival then that's when I will consider it a greater lifeform with rights to the point where should a mother and her unborn child be murdered then legally I believe the perpetrator should be charged with double homicide.

[TUFKAK]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Well that’s fucked up

Birthing people(and definitely women) don’t get to consent in this worldview; this isn’t that far of a stretch for them.

[crispy4000]

Just now, TUFKAK said:

Birthing people(and definitely women) don’t get to consent in this worldview; this isn’t that far of a stretch for them.

Society has more of a say than the dead kid.  But hey.

[TUFKAK]

Your side has made your views on that very clear, we know.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Your side has made your views on that very clear, we know.

To be fair, I’m not speaking for pro-life views as a whole on this.  Plenty of people who consider themselves pro-life make exceptions for rape.  The majority in all likelihood.  And I wouldn’t say they lean pro-choice as a result.

[TUFKAK]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

To be fair, I’m not speaking for pro-life views as a whole on this.  Plenty of people who consider themselves pro-life make exceptions for rape.  And I wouldn’t say they lean pro-choice as a result.

The logical conclusion remains, and I at least can intellectually appreciate the consistency despite me finding it abhorrent. I’m still speaking specifically to the complete disregard your side has for the birthing persons right to agency, bodily-autonomy and consent. You’ve made it clear that at no point in the process do you value that for them.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

26 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Society has more of a say than the dead kid.  But hey.

 

Considering that society-at-large would otherwise have to bear the economic/social burden of what could very well be an "unwanted" child, I would certainly expect/hope for that to be the case.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

The logical conclusion remains, and I at least can intellectually appreciate the consistency despite me finding it abhorrent. I’m still speaking specifically to the complete disregard your side has for the birthing persons right to agency, bodily-autonomy and consent. You’ve made it clear that at no point in the process do you value that for them.

Also the logical endpoint of his view is what we’re starting to see now: a surveillance state aimed at restricting the movement and medical decisions of women. This is already causing untold suffering of living breathing women who have to wait until they’re basically septic for the “life of the mother” criteria to be met for administering abortifacients even when the pregnancy has 0 chance of creating a human because it’s missing limbs or lacks brain function or a “heartbeat”
 

like if my wife gets pregnant she stands a good chance of bleeding out to death if the child goes to term. That’s why I got my vasectomy. But yeah let’s equally weight the value of the life of a mother of two living breathing children over that of a zygote

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

The logical conclusion remains, and I at least can intellectually appreciate the consistency despite me finding it abhorrent. I’m still speaking specifically to the complete disregard your side has for the birthing persons right to agency, bodily-autonomy and consent. You’ve made it clear that at no point in the process do you value that for them.

I do when it doesn’t involve as extreme of a measure as abortion to exercise those rights.  I’d speak similarly on other issues, such as a quackjob arguing for their rights to be slaveowners as free persons.

 

In my view, beyond the pail.

 

[TUFKAK]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also the logical endpoint of his view is what we’re starting to see now: a surveillance state aimed at restricting the movement and medical decisions of women. This is already causing untold suffering of living breathing women who have to wait until they’re basically septic for the “life of the mother” criteria to be met for administering abortifacients even when the pregnancy has 0 chance of creating a human because it’s missing limbs or lacks brain function or a “heartbeat”
 

like if my wife gets pregnant she stands a good chance of bleeding out to death if the child goes to term. That’s why I got my vasectomy. But yeah let’s equally weight the value of the life of a mother of two living breathing children over that of a zygote

Yes, it has never been about babies, it’s always been about control and frankly angst. I’m grateful I work in SF and don’t have to be placed into these types of ethical dilemmas but I know other providers are. 

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also the logical endpoint of his view is what we’re starting to see now: a surveillance state aimed at restricting the movement and medical decisions of women. This is already causing untold suffering of living breathing women who have to wait until they’re basically septic for the “life of the mother” criteria to be met even when the pregnancy has 0 chance of creating a human. 

We’re operating on very different principles of medical care and what laws entail surveillance states.

 

I will say that “life of the mother” is a different issue.  That’s one where I’m much more willing to entertain nuance.

 

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

like if my wife gets pregnant she stands a good chance of bleeding out to death if the child goes to term. That’s why I got my vasectomy. But yeah let’s equally weight the value of the life of a mother of two living breathing children over that of a zygote

I don’t think vasectomy’s should be illegal.  But if she was pregnant and had a good chance of bleeding out, more options should be on the table.  I’m not of the belief that the child and mother should both die, or that the mother shouldn’t be able prioritize life threatening conditions to her.

[TUFKAK]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I do when it doesn’t involve as extreme of a measure as abortion to exercise those rights.  I’d speak similarly on other issues, such a quackjob arguing for their rights to be slaverowners as free persons.

In my view, beyond the pail.

 

Fundamentally the argument boils down to what I mentioned above, we either respect self-determination and personal liberty or we don’t, and a society that is fine legislating deeply personal medical decisions and stripping away the very thing we say makes us “the greatest nation” (lol no) from half of our population is a society that is not worth saving and one that has failed at the most basic level of our founding.

 

Hell any percentage of our fellow Americans for that matter. To quote captain Picard, “how many does it take until it’s wrong.”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

We’re operating on very different principles of medical care and what laws entail surveillance states.

 

I will say that “life of the mother” is a different issue.  That’s one where I’m much more willing to entertain nuance.

 

I don’t think vasectomy’s should be illegal.  But if she was pregnant and had a good chance of bleeding out, more options should be on the table.  I’m not of the belief that the child and mother should both die, or that the mother shouldn’t be able prioritize life threatening conditions to her.

The other point I didn’t make before but I will now: your entire argument requires a surface level understanding of women’s health care and what actually can and does happen to people who become pregnant and this post is a perfect illustration of that. Because once you start getting specific your shit gets wishy washy and you talk a lot without saying anything

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Fundamentally the argument boils down to what I mentioned above, we either respect self-determination and personal liberty or we don’t, and a society that is fine legislating deeply personal medical decisions and stripping away the very thing we say makes us “the greatest nation” (lol no) from half of our population is a society that is not worth saving and one that has failed at the most basic level of our founding.

 

Hell any percentage of our fellow Americans for that matter. To quote captain Picard, “how many does it take until it’s wrong.”

I don’t respect self-determination and personal liberty over other human being’s lives at their core.  That’s my view in a nutshell.  It’s hard for me to romanticize about any view to the contrary.

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The other point I didn’t make before but I will now: your entire argument requires a surface level understanding of women’s health care and what actually can and does happen to people who become pregnant and this post is a perfect illustration of that. Because once you start getting specific your shit gets wishy washy and you talk a lot without saying anything

My wife has had long term complications post pregnancy and delivery.  I don’t think I’m as naive on this as you think.  But yes, I’m always open to learn more if I’m missing perspective.

[TUFKAK]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I don’t respect self-determination and personal liberty over other human being’s lives at their core.  That’s my view in a nutshell.  It’s hard for me to romanticize about any view to the contrary.

Then if someone’s right to their own body isn’t sacrosanct then nothing matters and anything can be justified, hence how you’ve effectively moralized rape as being superior to abortion. Reproduction is something that is done to one person in this worldview. When life gives you lemons and all.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, TUFKAK said:

Then if someone’s right to their own body isn’t sacrosanct then nothing matters and anything can be justified, hence how you’ve effectively moralized rape as being superior to abortion. When life gives you lemons and all.

Is Crispy claiming (maybe I missed it) that a rapist shouldn't be severely punished?

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Then if someone’s right to their own body isn’t sacrosanct then nothing matters and anything can be justified, hence how you’ve effectively moralized rape as being superior to abortion. When life gives you lemons and all.

Their body isn’t sacrosanct enough to unjustly kill another.  Or rape another.

 

It’s not a matter of rape being more morally licit.  Because its not morally licit.

 

 

[Ghost_MH]

29 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

My wife has had long term complications post pregnancy and delivery.  I don’t think I’m as naive on this as you think.  But yes, I’m always open to learn more if I’m missing perspective.

 

The real life problem we're seeing in states today is this basic question: Who determines when a mother's life is at risk?

 

That's the nuance here that nobody can determine. Many red states have decided on "when a mother starts to die" and that's plainly horrific. If we leave it to the medical professionals, is there someone overseeing them to make sure they aren't just rubber stamping abortions like medical marijuana cards? Who are the overseers there? Do doctors even want that kind of second guessing? Are we going to force doctors to remain in states that will go after them for doing the best they can?

[TUFKAK]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Is Crispy claiming (maybe I missed it) that a rapist shouldn't be severely punished?

 

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Do you oppose abortion in the case of rape?

 

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Personally?  Anything further than attempting to stop conception, yes.
 

I don’t consider that a pre-requisite for being pro-life in a general sense though.

I said at least they’re intellectually consent.

 

and a rapist being punished doesn’t negate the fact that there is no recurse for the victim and they’re forced to carry to term. 

 

 

[TUFKAK]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

Their body isn’t sacrosanct enough to unjustly kill another.  Or rape another.

 

It’s not a matter of rape being more morally licit.  Because its not morally licit.

 

 

And yet the birthing person did not consent to the very act and if they do not consent to the fetus being in their body you have no issue with them being forced, under threat of violence, to carry to term. It’s an abhorrent view.

 

And as a I said earlier, the fetus does not have a right to another humans body. 

[TUFKAK]

4 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The real life problem we're seeing in states today is this basic question: Who determines when a mother's life is at risk?

 

That's the nuisance here that nobody can determine. Many red states have decided on "when a mother starts to die" and that's plainly horrific. If we leave it to the medical professionals, is there someone overseeing them to make sure they aren't just rubber stamping abortions like medical marijuana cards? Who are the overseers there? Do doctors even want that kind of second guessing? Are we going to force doctors to remain in states that will go after them for doing the best they can?

I’d never work on emergency medicine or primary care in a red state due to that very risk.

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

The real life problem we're seeing in states today is this basic question: Who determines when a mother's life is at risk?

 

That's the nuisance here that nobody can determine. Many red states have decided on "when a mother starts to die" and that's plainly horrific. If we leave it to the medical professionals, is there someone overseeing them to make sure they aren't just rubber stamping abortions like medical marijuana cards? Who are the overseers there? Do doctors even want that kind of second guessing? Are we going to force doctors to remain in states that will go after them for doing the best they can?

Reasoned take.  Gotta go for now, I’ll respond when I’m able tomorrow.